Saturday, October 23, 2004

I'm going to make the argument that if you're a real libertarian, you're going to vote for Kerry. Consider that the Libertarian candidate has no chance of winning; you can't do any good by voting for him. On the other hand, a vote for Kerry will bring about a larger, more socialized nation with a more heavily progressive tax structure, increasing control over private industry and life, so on and so forth.

So why, you ask, is that a good thing? Why would I advocate helping Kerry win the presidency? Simple: His policies won't work, if they're really carried out long-term. Not that Bush is much better (he is - barely), but Kerry is bound, if he's able, to send the country straight into the furnaces of the firey down under (and we're not talking about the land of vegemite and boomerangs, here).

The end result of his twiddling and tinkering can be nothing other than the realization that government intervention produces the sort of problems that Americans abhor. From this point, perhaps real progress can be made.

Before you comment, just remember that this is very tongue-in-cheek. Now fire away, gentlefolk.

7 comments:

Tim, I guess I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say theat you're, "very tongue in cheek." But, if what you mean by that is "I'm only joking, and none of what I have just said is what I really believe", then go ahead and ignore what I have to say.

To think that by helping to elect John Kerry president is going to "send this country down the drain faster so that things can change" is an intellectually bankrupt reason for voting. Nothing will do more to perpetuate the problem more than allowing regulations to increase, taxes to increase, and all-around government busywork to increase as they WILL under a Kerry administration. Consider that when G.W. Bush was running for president 4 years ago he promised to stick to a restrained policy of foreign involvement (in contrast to Clinton's Balkan escapades.) Yet, what did we end up with ... the worst foreign adventure this country has seen since Vietnam. This has resulted in thousands of lost American lives as well as tens of thousands of lost Iraqi lives, and not to metnion hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent millions of times better if it were in private hands. Electing Kerry president will not "enlighten" the American public to the problems of government, instead most Americans will ignorantly "rally around the President" against what they perceive to be threats by the domestic oppostion and (God forbid) if there is another attack, the populace will become even more set in their present mindset (viz. - that gov't can do no wrong when it comes to "eliminating" terrorism.)

What you should do instead is abstain from voting and once this "non-voting" voting reaches a "critical mass" only then will government become to be seen as illegitimate and THEN we can make true reforms.

1) Yes, tongue-in-cheek is another way of expressing less than seriousness.

2) I think that there are more ways to get to a consensus on the illegitimacy of government than non-voting. Note that voter registrations and turnouts have been increasing in recent years. Not voting doesn't help unless you're not voting because you don't believe the myth of consent; you can still believe that the government is legitimate, just that you have no control over it, and thus no rational reason to participate in the electoral process.

Chris: At one point do the non-voters achieve critical mass? We have rather low (relative to other industrialized nations) voter efficacy, which so far has done little to suggest to anyone that anything is illegitimate.

Ok. But I still don't see how voting for Kerry brings us any closer to changing the status quo. There's no reason to vote for Kerry than there is for Bush, afterall look at the legislation that has been passed during Bush's four years in office as compared to his claims in 2000 as being a "conservative." Does voting for Kerry really make that much of a difference than voting for Bush. I think not, and furthermore I think that by voting for him you are consenting to accepting the outcomes of a Kerry administration (good or bad.)

You boys are crying about Kerry's domestic policy. Do you pay attention to the US political system at all? If he is elected, he won't pass any bills concerning domestic economic policy. Republicans house and senate will do their own thing, and Kerry won't veto what they do, because he's a moderate anyway. He'll tip the legislation a bit to the left, but not much.

The real world difference between the president and senator Kerry concerns fighting terrorists. Kerry believes in spending money to upgrade the security on US soil, and using a law enforcement approach to shutting down terrorist networks. Kerry has expertise in this field as he's been investigating the topic of organized crime worldwide during his years in the US senate. He has proposed many bills to curb foreign financing of crime. All but one were shot down by republicans when they were initially sent to the hill, but after 9/11 many of Kerry's proposals were taken up in the republican based Patriot Act.

He believes that we can't force democracy on Iraq or most other mideast nations, based on his experience in Vietnam. Kerry learned a lesson from the tragedy that was Vietnam, while Bush's top advisors were the ones who wanted Vietnam, and pushed for the Iraq war today.

Concerning the Iraq war, Kerry has a few policies that I enjoy particularly. He doesn't want us to have permanent army bases in Iraq, thus keeping our troops out of harms way, and curbing longterm ill feelings towards the US(I don't want my friend getting killed during his second tour in Iraq). He wants to take steps toward the US giving up some administrative control over the occupation of Iraq, thus further reducing the level of anti-americanism within the region.

Bush believes that he was ordained by God to spread freedom across the world.Kerry believes in statecraft and law enforcement.You decide which one is more likely to "send the country straight into the furnaces of the firey down under".

DW

I'd really like to hear your justification for this post, given the fact that Kerry won't pass one domestic economic policy bill.

Ahem. Moderate? Did you say moderate? Pardon me while I giggle. Moderate like Hillary Clinton or Karl Marx, you mean.

Yes, he's beholden to the status quo, so he's not going to be shaking things up much - but from my perspective, that's not a good thing, especially since he's going to be raising tax rates every chance he gets. Bush may too, but he's at least an advocate of tax relief. And yes, I do believe that tax relief means relief for the ones that actually pay the taxes in the first place...

No, I don't think Kerry will be the Antichrist, but I don't think he's Mr. Rodgers either. Maybe Cookie Monster, or the Grinch. Or a tribble, with his lovely sculpted hairdo. In any case, I don't support him for the simple reason that he hasn't convinced me that he actually has a single belief worth stating in his bones.

He's about the same as Gore - a political waffler that molds his ideology to the latest polls. Gore was a "conservative" democrat down in his homestate, but on the national stage he's an arch-liberal. Very much the same story with Kerry - an uber-liberal at home, now a main-stream candidate for the people. Very touching, but not encouraging. Without having the appearance of actual beliefs, I have no basis for any confidence in any future policies that he'll support. His actions will reflect the fickleness of the voting public. Bush may be zealous and monotone, but at least I feel one can know where he stands, and how you to act in relation to him.